Re: Stegosaur volume of Swiss Journal of Geosciences

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

 >> There's always a non-zero chance of this happening for any taxon.
> > That's science. Maybe Noasaurus will prove undiagnostic since it's
> > so fragmentary. Better get rid of Noasauridae in favor of
> > "Masiakasauridae" (since Velocisaurus is hardly better).
> > Abelisaurus is pretty poorly known too. Carnotauridae is the safer
> > way to go. Ornithomimus is based on a few metatarsals and
> > metacarpals that may not even belong to the same taxon. Let's go
> > with Struthiomimidae just to be sure.
>
>  You know... all these strike me as being REALLY good ideas. ;-)
>
>  For the sake of stability, I really do think it is better to anchor
>  clades in well-known taxa. And by 'well-known' I mean scientifically
>  well-known (i.e., not fragmentary).

Then you should spell out the fact that you're waving the ICZN goodbye. 
Not that there's anything wrong with that, just make clear you and 
Mickey M aren't talking past each other because you're talking about 
different topics while believing you're talking about the same.